Brighton 15 (EBU)

[lamford]

You seem to be saying that when a player hesitates before making a call, we shouldn't assume, for the purpose of UI rulings, that he was considering some other call.

No, I was not saying that. I do not think a BIT conveys the UI of extra offence. The person might equally have a defensive hand and take time to realise that he has no sensible bid.

[nige1]

Notice how the pernicious SEWOG rule makes it hard for North to make a tight matchpoint double of 3♥, for a top.

I don't notice anything of the sort. A double by North isn't close to being a serious error, wild or gambling.

On this deal, doubling 3♥ is likely to be a success (3♥X-1 or 4♣=). Assume a different layout where 3♥X makes. In other threads, where one side seems to use UI and the other side takes a subsequent unsuccessful action, posters often label the latter a SEWOG. If one of those posters were the director, you would regret your double. IMO, if the SEWOG rule were scrapped, the game would be fairer.

[lamford]

posters often label the latter a SEWOG.

I think most people know what a SEWOG is. PhilKing thinks it is failure to execute an obvious squeeze, and ArtK78 thinks it is a double of 6NT holding AK of a suit on lead. I am surprised you think that this eminent forum has any difficulty with the term.

[c_corgi]

No, I was not saying that. I do not think a BIT conveys extra offence. The person might equally have a defensive hand and take time to realise that he has no sensible bid. I do not think it "trivially" suggests bidding in this case.

 

If a player has a genuine problem he is likely to break tempo.

 

If a player does not have a genuine problem he is only likely to break tempo if he fails to realise that he doesn't have a problem.

 

Therefore if a player breaks tempo the chances of him having a genuine problem are increased. In the OP case, he only has a genuine problem if his values are offensive, so the BIT increases the chances of his values being offensive.

 

It might be argued that whether a problem is genuine or not depends on the class of player, but I think pretty much any player would realise offensive values were more likely to require action than defensive ones here.

[lamford]

If a player has a genuine problem he is likely to break tempo.

 

If a player does not have a genuine problem he is only likely to break tempo if he fails to realise that he doesn't have a problem.

This is counterbalanced by the fact that if he has a genuine problem, where he was seriously considering bidding at the three-level, some of the time he will bid, so if he passes he is less likely to have a genuine problem.

[c_corgi]

This is counterbalanced by the fact that if he has a genuine problem, where he was seriously considering bidding at the three-level, much of the time he will bid, so if he passes he is less likely to have a genuine problem.

 

In my experience hands which pass initially but then will actually overcall at the 3-level are vanishingly rare. It is much more common to have a passed-hand on which overcalling at the 3-level might work well.

[gnasher]

On this deal, doubling 3♥ is likely to be a success (3♥X-1 or 4♣=). Assume a different layout where 3♥X makes.

Yes, I understood the point you were making.

 

In other threads, where one side seems to use UI and the other side takes a subsequent unsuccessful action, the latter is often labelled a SEWOG. If one of those posters were the director, you would regret your double.

Yes, some other actions in some other threads are sometimes labelled SEWoGs by some people some of whom may be directors. That doesn't mean that this putative action would be labelled a SEWoG by anybody who actually is a director. And even if it would, we have appeals committees to correct bad rulings.

 

IMO, if the SEWOG rule were scrapped, the game would be fairer.

When a rule is misapplied, the right answer is usually either better training or better wording, rather than discarding the rule entirely. I know that there are sometimes cases where the "SEWoG rule" has been misapplied (usually by people who incorrectly call it the "double shot rule") but I think you're wrong that it would be so applied to a double of 3♥ with this North hand.

[lamford]

In my experience hands which pass initially but then will actually overcall at the 3-level are vanishingly rare. It is much more common to have a passed-hand on which overcalling at the 3-level might work well.

In my experience passed hands which are even considering bidding at the 3-level on this auction are rare. Presumably, a hand in between a weak two and a one-level opening is the only hand type, and for many aggressive players the hand does not exist. So, the argument about the BIT showing offensive values is unconvincing, and I do not think it "trivially, in fact" suggests bidding.

 

Partner could also have something like a 5-1-4-3 11-count when bidding 3H will work out badly.

[mycroft]

If a player has a genuine problem he is likely to break tempo.

 

If a player does not have a genuine problem he is only likely to break tempo if he fails to realise that he doesn't have a problem.

Therefore if a player breaks tempo the chances of him having a genuine problem are increased.

Okay so far.

In the OP case, he only has a genuine problem if his values are offensive, so the BIT increases the chances of his values being offensive.

Flight A players? Recognized partnership? Used to playing against non-natural systems?

 

I would guess that 90% of Flight A in my neighbourhood have never discussed this auction, never mind how things change by a passed hand. I would guess that 80% of Flight A in my neighbourhood have never thought about this auction, and have no idea, even meta-agreements they like to play, what double means.

 

In this area, the person has a problem - he wants to not play 3♣ undoubled, but doesn't know whether to defend, or insist on spades, or sit for hearts. I'm quite certain he doesn't know what 3♦ will be taken as, and the difference between that and X.

 

Got all that worked out? Good. How much time have you hitched for? Would you have taken the same amount of time trying to work this out with KTxxx Axx x KT9x?

[nige1]

This is counterbalanced by the fact that if he has a genuine problem, where he was seriously considering bidding at the three-level, some of the time he will bid, so if he passes he is less likely to have a genuine problem.

I agree. Assume that West is an ethical player who tanks only when he imagines he has a problem:

An inexperienced West tanks when he as values, whether they be offensive or defensive. If bidding is a close decision he may chicken out and pass.

An experienced West who has offensive values and seriously considers a bid tends to bite the bullet and make the bid because he's aware of the UI constraints that a slow pass imposes on partner. Hence, for him, a slow pass is more likely to indicate defensive values.

Arguably here, however, West's slow pass confirms the high cards that the auction merely implies he has, making it safer for East to bid his good six-card suit.

[CamHenry]

I might pass with the East hand but FrancesHinden would always bid 3♥, so pass, 3♥ and perhaps double are likely to be LAs.

 

Frances' opinion on what to call with the E hand in not necessarily relevant. If the actual participants are weak, Frances is not in "the class of players in question".

[VixTD]

I took the majority view here and ruled out the 3♥ bid. I adjusted the score to 3♣(S) +1.

[nige1]

When a rule is misapplied, the right answer is usually either better training or better wording, rather than discarding the rule entirely. I know that there are sometimes cases where the "SEWoG rule" has been misapplied (usually by people who incorrectly call it the "double shot rule") but I think you're wrong that it would be so applied to a double of 3♥ with this North hand.

IMO: Few club directors have time for additional training on this kind of thing. After an opponent's infraction, a poor player knows that he may have taken actions that the director will regard as wild, gambling or seriously in error. A player aware of SEWOG law will be even more reluctant to call the director, knowing that he is unlikely to receive much redress, even if the director rules in his favour. The SEWOG law can add insult to injury. In effect, it further encourages infractions. The SEWOG law is one of the complex and unnecessary rules that add no value to the game.

[mycroft]

It's true, most TDs at the lower-than-tournament level will [Edit: not] understand SEWoG. I don't think that's a big problem; I don't expect they'll run into the players for whom the law was written.

 

I can't imagine the poor player will have a clue what SEWoG is - or "for a player at their level", what it could be. I certainly can't believe they'd fail to call the TD over it. I got into trouble once, for delivering a ruling that effectively said "If you were more experienced, you would have known this was an insane call; and were you that more experienced, you would not have got the ruling in your favour" (...for that part you were responsible for, yadda yadda, SE). She complained "why should I get away with it if you wouldn't?" (after 20 minutes explaining to her why it was SE). "Because if it took 20 minutes to explain why this was a SE to you, then it wasn't a serious error for someone at your level. Now you understand it, you won't get away with it next time. Of course, you won't *do* it next time either."

 

Why would I spend 20 minutes explaining this to a player? Well, I'm sure you can take a guess :-).

 

I disagree with your argument that the SEWoG rule will make people reluctant to call the TD. Whether or not the TD says "that call was so gambling that the damage you caused was all your own", *the opponents will get the AS they deserve for their infraction* (if any).

 

If you've never played with or against the kind of pros whose living demands they give their "my best bridge skill is that I have $300/session" partner monsterpoints, or the kind of pros whose living incites "I don't care if we're known as boors who skirt every possible ethical loophole, as long as we're known as *boors*who*win*", then you won't see the need for these kinds of rules (and the "failure to play bridge" regulation, and the "pro question" prohibition, and the "full disclosure required" or "convention name is not adequate disclosure" regulations, or...I guarantee that the SEWoG rule is one of those complex and *necessary* rules, that almost never come up, but when they do, do in fact add value to the game.

[barmar]

It's true, most TDs at the lower-than-tournament level will understand SEWoG.

Is there a missing not somewhere?

[mycroft]

Absolutely. Fixed. Thanks.

[nige1]

It's true, most TDs at the lower-than-tournament level will not understand SEWoG. I don't think that's a big problem; I don't expect they'll run into the players for whom the law was written.

IMO: complex, over-subjective rules add little to game. They seem unnecessary.

 

If such rules were scrapped it wouldn't change the basic enjoyable nature of Bridge (except for some secretary-birds and directors). What's the point of having sophisticated rules when, as mycroft says, so few players and directors understand them.

 

Assume, for the sake of argument, that SEWOG rules were scrapped. Suppose Mycroft's evil pro decides to take advantage. He judges that his opponent has broken the law and takes some wild and gambling action. The pro really is a gambler, because if his wild gamble fails, there's no guarantee that his opponent broke the law or that the director will rule that way. Finally, however, take an extreme case where the pro is certain that the ruling will go in his favour. It's still hard to see any real harm or unfairness. The pro is acting within the (new simple) law.

 

If rules were simpler and clearer, there would be more incentive for players and directors to learn and abide by them.

[VixTD]

IMO: Few club directors have time for additional training on this kind of thing.

I train EBU club directors, and we don't expect them to be able to deal with SEWOG cases, nor even to be able to deal with routine rulings involving assigned adjusted scores on their own. They are expected to be able to recognise situations where misinformation or unauthorized information could have caused damage, gather the facts and consult a more experienced TD or referee, so this shouldn't be a problem.

 

Suppose Mycroft's evil pro decides to take advantage. He judges that his opponent has broken the law and takes some wild and gambling action. The pro really is a gambler, because if his wild gamble fails, there's no guarantee that his opponent has broken the law or that the director will rule that way. Finally, however, take an extreme case where the pro is certain that the ruling will go in his favour. It's still hard to see any real harm or unfairness.

If the pro is certain he'll get a favourable ruling which will net him, say, 10 IMPs, do you think it's fair that he should be allowed to try a wild action that will net him 16 IMPs if it works, with the fall-back that he'll still keep the 10 IMP adjustment if it fails?

[nige1]

I train EBU club directors, and we don't expect them to be able to deal with SEWOG cases, nor even to be able to deal with routine rulings involving assigned adjusted scores on their own. They are expected to be able to recognise situations where misinformation or unauthorized information could have caused damage, gather the facts and consult a more experienced TD or referee, so this shouldn't be a problem.

Good advice, VixTD, but in my experience, club TDs don't consult with more experienced TDs.

If the pro is certain he'll get a favourable ruling which will net him, say, 10 IMPs, do you think it's fair that he should be allowed to try a wild action that will net him 16 IMPs if it works, with the fall-back that he'll still keep the 10 IMP adjustment if it fails?

It's fair under new simpler rules that don't forbid it. In a game, fairness is judged according to the rules of the game. For players, the main criterion of fairness is consistent rulings that deter rule-breaking.

 

Anyway, unless the ruling goes in the pro's favour, the pro will be stuck with a worse result when his gamble fails. The pro is likely to be aware that certainty is as rare in Bridge as in lIfe. For example, I've been sure a director ruling was right but my team captain appealed, with a favourable result. Again, in appeals booklets, you read of cases where the committee confirms the director's ruling but expert commentators judge both got it wrong.

[mycroft]

The laws are written to allow enforcement of what the Lawmakers (and from them, "bridge players" in general) consider fair, given its history as a "gentleman's game". I do realize the multiple ironies in that statement.

 

IF the law was rewritten to allow double-shots (which is what Nigel is saying, effectively), it would bring it in line with many other sports, the one that comes immediately to mind being gridiron football (but the no-ball liberties in the Ashes also apply). And if that were the case, then fine. I don't think the game would be more fun - because certainly the lower level players, who would never consider pulling a WoG action (or SE for that matter - for them, anyway) with the current rule, will certainly start running "free plays" once one of those Nasty Flight A players did it, and the Law was explained to them by the TD.

 

But, as Nigel says, it would be easier to rule - for the two times a year I have to consider this, vs the 5 times I get ruled on the 20 times. And of course, I'd be called on the "is this a doubleshottable infraction or not" and when I rule it isn't, I'm sure that the "expert" who already thinks I can't play and don't think will accept it calmly (say, for instance, it's a UI case, where for him the UI would clearly suggest X, but it's ruled (after he shoots the moon and fails) that for this pair, the UI says only "I've never seen this auction before." Or does Nigel want to simplify "for the class of player involved", too?)

[VixTD]

It's fair under new simpler rules that don't forbid it. In a game, fairness is judged according to the rules of the game.

This is a teleological argument. Instead of asking yourself whether a new law is fair before introducing it, you introduce it and define fairness in terms of the new law. You are allowed to have opinions on laws, you know, based on your inherent sense of fairness and justice.

 

Anyway, unless the ruling goes in the pro's favour, the pro will be stuck with a worse result when his gamble fails.

And the offending side will get an undeserved better result. You may attribute this to the pro's gamble rather than their original offence, but what the SEWOG adjustment tries to do is to ensure that offenders don't gain by committing irregularities, and that the non-offenders don't get a risk-free shot at an even better score just because they got innocently mixed up in an exchange of unauthorized or misinformation between their opponents.

 

It can be a pain to do the calculations, but it meets my criteria for a fair rule.

[nige1]

Or does Nigel want to simplify "for the class of player involved", too?)

IMO: "class of player" should be judged according to the typical standard of players in the competition. This would make it easier to find players to poll, lead to more consistent results, and be regarded as fairer by players.

 

OK, Gnasher and others disagree and they do advance persuasive arguments :(

 

Anyway, many simplifying suggestions have been made by myself and others, some worth consideration by Bridge rule-makers. Rule-makers should make more effort to simplify rules so that more players and directors can understand them. For example, their current commitment to equitably restoring the status quo requires sophisticated rules. Providing players with options after opponents' infractions generates further complexity. And so on ad nauseam.

 

Simpler rules are slightly easier to write clearly, are less likely to harbour loop-holes and anomalies, and should result in more consistent and deterrent rulings.

 

IMO, this would result in a more enjoyable game.

[nige1]

It's fair under new simpler rules that don't forbid it. In a game, fairness is judged according to the rules of the game. For players, the main criterion of fairness is consistent rulings that deter rule-breaking.

This is a teleological argument. Instead of asking yourself whether a new law is fair before introducing it, you introduce it and define fairness in terms of the new law. You are allowed to have opinions on laws, you know, based on your inherent sense of fairness and justice.

I don't think my argument is teleological but we're both entitled to our opinions about what is fair in a game.

[jeffford76]

If the pro is certain he'll get a favourable ruling which will net him, say, 10 IMPs, do you think it's fair that he should be allowed to try a wild action that will net him 16 IMPs if it works, with the fall-back that he'll still keep the 10 IMP adjustment if it fails?

 

I think it's fair whether it's a pro or not, and I think you're using the word "pro" instead of "player" to try to generate sympathy for your side of the argument.

[blackshoe]

I think Nigel should rewrite the law book to his satisfaction, and then submit it here so we can tear it apart. :P